Read it for free while you can, because the New York Times Co. today announced that, starting next year, you'll have to pay for nytimes.com after reading a certain number of articles in a given month.

An email from Times Co. honchos Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Janet Robinson follows. Note that the Times apparently doesn't plan to combine this metered approach with a broader, Steve Brill-style consoritum.

Just received an email sent from several Globe staffers to the leadership of the Boston Newspaper Guild (with the exception of the embattled Dan Totten), in which they ask the union to find some way to avoid implementation of what sounds like a very bare-bones healthcare plan.

In terms of management-union and intra-union dynamics at the Globe, what's really striking is the paragaph in which the signers claim they received misleading information from the NYT Co.

As you may know, there's a movement afoot inside the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Globe's largest union, to hold a recall election. The impetus? Dissatisfaction with the way the Guild's leaders--including Guild head Dan Totten--handled the recent concede-or-close threat from the New York Times Company.

A
recall election may be initiated in two ways: (a) The Governing Board,
by a two-thirds vote of its entire membership, may initiate a recall
election process in the case of some or all union officers or
delegates; or (b) the membership may initiate a recall election process
with 20 percent of the membership signing a petition to the Governing
Board for that purpose.

1. The Governing Board must so inform the membership of this decision and reasons for this decision within 10 days.

2. The Governing Board must call a general membership meeting for the purpose of discussing this decision.

3. The general membership will then have the power to call a special election under the election procedures in Article III.

Earlier
today, though, I was forwarded an email--originally sent by
Totten--which argues, basically, that it's not that simple....

My question is this: Since the imposition of the 23 percent wage cut was based on the Times claim of a bargaining "impasse," how Times officials be participating in marathon bargaining sessions yet asserting an impasse at the same time? Someone help me with this.

Boston PhoenixPrepare to pay for nytimes.comPublished 1/20/2010 by Adam Reilly
Read it for free while you can, because the New York Times Co. today announced that, starting next year, you'll have to pay for nytimes.com...